It is worthwhile to refer here that, interviews and pre-contractual negotiations are governed by the provisions of Section 18(1) of Schedule 2 of the ACCA (Cth) as it have been prohibiting misleading and deceptive conduct in trade and commerce. The case of Barto v GPR management Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339 can be cited as the best example of pre-contractual negotiations. In this case, it was observed that, there was alleged misleading conduct in relation to trade practices. However various representations were allegedly made to the employee during the course of employment and negotiations in regard to his contract of employment. In this context, it is important to state that, the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) at present is known as The Australia Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (ACCA) before 1 January 2011.
It is worth mentioning that, various kinds of business irrespective of their size, different forms of contracts are associated with it (Dietrich, 2015). In such process, business contracts dispose various assets and acquire those assets by establishing partnership relations with the existing corporate entities (Waarden, 2017). Therefore, in this regard, most of the time the contracting parties relies upon the form of the written contract without considering the surrounding circumstances which was observed in the case of Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors [2012] VSCA 91. This case was concerned with an appeal made on the part of the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria in regard to the statements made in relation to treatment of cancer on the website. In this case, it was held by the Court that the statements made by the defendants were misleading and deceptive. It is worth noting the importance of pre-contractual negotiations and promises which may alter the liability on the part of the contracting parties (Kong et al., 2017). However, the nature of the liability is such that they do not work in correspondence to the terms of the contract. In the case of Roberts v Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd (1993) AILR 213, it was observed that there was breakdown in communication over the signature of Robert and as a result of it he had to embark on a marathon 16,000kms from his native place to Hong for the purpose of accessing his cash. This was due to the reason that, the card he issued in Hong Kong is no longer considered to be valid as a result of security upgrade.
According to the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce has been prohibited. In this regard, according to this section, when a person engages in any conduct, in either trade or commerce; however the nature of the conduct is such that it is misleading or deceptive which is likely to mislead or deceive the parties concerned. Therefore, in this context, mention can be made about the provisions of Section 52 which states that, a corporation, during the tenure of trade and commerce should not engage in any conduct which is highly misleading and deceptive in nature that can mislead or deceive the parties to contract. However, the provisions of Section 52 are such that, it has no legal sanction. Infringement of Section 52 can give rise to both criminal and civil sanctions. It is noteworthy to mention here that, from the beginning the provisions of Section 52 create impact on the principal offender but also on those who aids the breach of the section. It can be stated that, only the company shall be held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct engaged by the company itself or by any directors or officer of the company involved in this kind of conduct and therefore has been held personally liable for the outcome. In the case of Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444 (7 April 2000), (2001) 177 ALR 501, it was observed that the employer has made misrepresentation in breach under the provisions of Section 52 to the employee while negotiating the terms of the employment contract. In this case, there was an issue regarding the fact that whether the nature of the misrepresentation was such that it involved activities in relation to trade and commerce.
In the present scenario, it can be observed that, prior to the acceptance of offer and during the course of negotiation; Max was informed that after the acceptance of the offer he would get immediate access to generous employee share scheme. However, after signing the contract, it was observed that the employees are only liable to access to the employee share scheme if they serve the company for a considerable period of 2 years. In this regard, the provisions of Section 18(1) of the ACCA can be referred which states that misleading and deceptive conduct in trade and commerce has been prohibited. Therefore, it is worthwhile to apply the case of Barto v GPR management Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339 in the present scenario. It can be stated that pre-contractual negotiations are binding and can be relied upon. However, it may alter the nature of the liability on the part of the contracting parties. Therefore, the case of Roberts v Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd (1993) AILR 213 can be applied in this context.
The provisions of Section 52 can also be applied in the present case which states that, any corporation is prohibited from engaging in any misleading and deceptive activities in order to mislead or deceive the contractual parties. Therefore, applying the provisions of Section 52, it can be stated that at present the company shall be held liable for misleading Max by informing him previously that he will get access to generous share scheme. Therefore, it can be stated that, there is a legal right on the part of Max to have access to the scheme and can even obtain compensation. It is important to refer the case of Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444 (7 April 2000), (2001) 177 ALR 501 because in this case, the employer has misrepresented the contract in relation to the provisions of Section 52. It was also observed that, the nature of the misrepresentation was such that it was associated with trade and commerce.
The provisions of Section 31 of Schedule 2 of the ACCA (Cth) have been prohibiting conduct of the parties which shall mislead or is likely to mislead the applicants in relation to the offers made regarding employment which has been observed in the case of O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia [2002] FCAFC 188 (17 June 2002). The essentials of a contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, certainty and legality of the parties. The nature of the offer must be such that it is clear and free from any vagueness (Brody & Temple, 2016). The nature of the acceptance must be certain and unconditional. The terms of the contract must be certain to the extent that the terms should not be too vaguely depicted that it will not be enforceable by law and thereby fails to maintain the enforceability of the contract as observed in the case of Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17. It is worthwhile to refer here that, misrepresentation of the relevant facts contained in the contract can vitiate the contract to a considerable extent.
It is important to note here that, if the discussions which took place between the contracting parties have not been depicted in a written agreement, then the content is like to be unenforceable (Pearson, 2017). The terms of a written agreement are considered to be above all until and unless there is a presence of contrary evidence (Waarden, 2017)..
In the present case study, if the promise on the part of the company to Max has been made 6 months after recognizing the nature of his excellent work, then the answer would not have been completely different. This is due to the reason that the nature of the contract must be definite and clearly stated. However, it is important to state in this context that, the contract can only be accepted when the terms and conditions of the proposal made to the parties in contract are exactly the same as depicted in the contractual agreement. If prior to the formation of the agreement, new terms are likely to be suggested it must be clearly depicted in the contract. It is noteworthy to mention here that, a valid acceptance takes place when there is a performance of contract (Helveston & Jacobs, 2014). It can be rightly stated that, acceptance that takes place after the completion of the specific performance of a contract can also be stated to be binding and can be relied upon.
Conclusion:
Max has a legal right to access the scheme if the promise was made to him by the company 6 months after the tenure of his employment.
References:
Brody, G., & Temple, K. (2016). Unfair but not illegal: Are Australia’s consumer protection laws allowing predatory businesses to flourish?. Alternative Law Journal, 41(3), 169-173.
Dietrich, J. O. A. C. H. I. M. (2015). Liability arising from contract and under the australian consumer law.
Helveston, M., & Jacobs, M. (2014). The incoherent role of bargaining power in contract law. Wake Forest L. Rev., 49, 1017.
Kong, E., Goh, S. C. N., Gussen, B. F., Turner, J., & Abawi, L. A. (2017). Strategies on addressing contract cheating: a case study from an Australian regional university. In Handbook of Research on Academic Misconduct in Higher Education (pp. 206-228). IGI Global.
Pearson, G. (2017). Current Issues for Consumer Protection Law in Australia. In Consumer Law and Socioeconomic Development (pp. 199-208). Springer, Cham.
Waarden, N. (2017). Employment law : concepts and cases / Natalie van der Waarden. – Version details. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/nbdid/59902252
Wilson, J., & Pender, K. (2016). Keep the faith?: The good, the bad and the uncertain in Australian employment contracts. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, (240), 24.
Barto v GPR management Services Pte Ltd (1991) 105 ALR 339.
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson [1990] HCA 17.
Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc & Ors [2012] VSCA 91.
O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia [2002] FCAFC 188 (17 June 2002).
Roberts v Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd (1993) AILR 213.
Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444 (7 April 2000), (2001) 177 ALR 501.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download